Phoenix Mars Probe Succeeds!

[Ron Collins]

I think they will find microbial evidence. It may not be currently living, but the remains of once living microbes. I think this could be a great opportunity to change official opinion about life in the universe. Perhaps start to open the doors of disclosure. Of course these are just hopfull thoughts.

 

[CapnG]

Prove that Mars is earth-like and that NASA is covering it up.

Can anyone explain why NASA can't equip a colour camera? And don't give me any of that crap about adjusting colours, I've worked with cameras and while I'm admittedly no expert, I know there are means to adjust and correct what the camera sees using other devices (a simple light meter goes a long way). And don't tell me NASA can't afford it...

The point is we shouldn't even need to debate this, we should be seeing mars, as it is, period. No filtering, no adjusting. The fact that we AREN'T speaks volumes, IMHO.

 

[Ally]

Good point CapnG maybe David has some ideas about the color camera aspect.

 

[fitzbew88]

Can anyone explain why NASA can't equip a colour camera? And don't give me any of that crap about adjusting colours, I've worked with cameras and while I'm admittedly no expert, I know there are means to adjust and correct what the camera sees using other devices (a simple light meter goes a long way). And don't tell me NASA can't afford it...

Keep in mind that these cameras are not like the cameras you buy down at Circuit City. These have to survive a very stressful launch, a 100 million mile journey in a vacuum in colder conditions that we can barely imagine, survive reentry and landing and then run off of solar power for three months in a near-vacuum in still more cold conditions. And also these cameras are actually used for science not taking pretty pictures of the horizon.

I doubt we would even recognize what it was used for if a NASA engineer dropped it in our laps.

This isn't like making cornflakes.

The point is we shouldn't even need to debate this, we should be seeing mars, as it is, period. No filtering, no adjusting. The fact that we AREN'T speaks volumes, IMHO.

I'd guess that at least some of the photos look very much like Mars would to the naked eye; a terrain with a lot of red-orange in it. At least when we look at Mars directly with our own two eyes there's a lot of orange in it. The atmosphere is so thin ( < 1% Earth atmospheres), I don't see how the atmosphere could possibly look anything like ours.

Although it would mightily satisfy our curiosity, I'm not sure there is much value in using a camera that would try to duplicate how the human eye sees things.

I don't even know for sure if it is even possible --- the colors of things (at least how our eyes perceive it) is somewhat dependent on light scattering in the atmosphere. On a planet with so little atmosphere, would objects even have the same "color" as they do on Earth?

When we look at object and see color, all we are seeing are the colors that were not absorbed by the object. With the increased distance from the Sun, the vastly thinner atmosphere, the dust --- the cold --- could *anything* have the same color?

 

[BrandonD]

Prove that Mars is earth-like and that NASA is covering it up.

Can anyone explain why NASA can't equip a colour camera? And don't give me any of that crap about adjusting colours, I've worked with cameras and while I'm admittedly no expert, I know there are means to adjust and correct what the camera sees using other devices (a simple light meter goes a long way). And don't tell me NASA can't afford it...

The point is we shouldn't even need to debate this, we should be seeing mars, as it is, period. No filtering, no adjusting. The fact that we AREN'T speaks volumes, IMHO.

I agree. I've noticed something very interesting regarding this subject. With the last Mars probe (Atlantis I think), color photos were sent back. There is a color bar on the probe with 4 different colors which (as I understand it) is intended to be used for calibration. So the idea is to adjust the image so that the 4 color bars are the correct colors, and thus the colors in the rest of the image will be correct.

Well the interesting thing about this is that the 4 color bars are completely wrong. So I actually took the photos into photoshop and adjusted the colors so that they were correct. After doing this I noticed that the 2 colors that had been removed from the images were the colors green and blue. This would specifically make the mars photos look more red and lifeless.

I haven't drawn any conclusions from this, I'm not an expert and perhaps there is another reason for these image adjustments, it was just something I did because I was interested.

 

[Poi]

I think Keith Laney must be very close in his true color analysis. Check out the bottom of this page for comparison. http://keithlaney.net/opportunity_color_images.htm

Regardless of his particular findings on Mars or the Moon, I find his site a good romp. He's also digitized all of the old Moon photos for Nasa. http://keithlaney.net/

 

[fitzbew88]

...the interesting thing about this is that the 4 color bars are completely wrong. So I actually took the photos into photoshop and adjusted the colors so that they were correct.

If you're using a filter that removes some colors (possibly to attenuate other colors), then it seems to me that the photo is "right" and your photoshop image is "wrong".

Remember, there is no doubt that the images we see from NASA are processed; no sensible person would dispute that. The issue is whether this is done to facilitate a conspiracy to hide the fact that Mars is "earth-like" and "teeming" with life.

I don't think you can take a composite image that was processed with a filter and then "force" color back into it and have it come out right.

After doing this I noticed that the 2 colors that had been removed from the images were the colors green and blue. This would specifically make the mars photos look more red and lifeless.

You are kind've speculating here, while subtly buying into a conspiracy theory. All you can say is that filtering out the green/blue would attenuate the red. (And like I said earlier, I'm not sure it's a useful analysis anyway.)

I haven't drawn any conclusions from this, I'm not an expert and perhaps there is another reason for these image adjustments, it was just something I did because I was interested.

You have reached a conclusion: Blue and Green was removed to "... specifically make Mars look more red and lifeless."

Don't state a conclusion and then say you haven't reached a conclusion.

 

[BrandonD]

If you're using a filter that removes some colors (possibly to attenuate other colors), then it seems to me that the photo is "right" and your photoshop image is "wrong".

I don't think you can take a composite image that was processed with a filter and then "force" color back into it and have it come out right.

You have reached a conclusion: Blue and Green was removed to "... specifically make Mars look more red and lifeless."

Don't state a conclusion and then say you haven't reached a conclusion.

Dude, you're wrong. I didn't use the process that you're illustrating, and I haven't drawn any conclusions. You are the one who clearly has something to defend here.

I'll spell it out to make it easier to understand:

Say you have a candy apple. This candy apple is red, and the stick is green. Someone takes a photo of my apple. In this photo, the apple is brown and the stick is yellow.

So I take the photo into photoshop and tinker with the hues, adjusting them until the apple is red and the stick is green. It's that simple.

Observing the 2 apple photos side-by side, it becomes clear that certain colors appear to be missing from the brown-apple photo.

It's just an observation of fact, no conclusions are involved. Colors can be accidentally removed.

 

[fitzbew88]

Dude, you're wrong. I didn't use the process that you're illustrating...

Well, I didn't deliberately illustrate a process --- I'm not sure what you mean.

...and I haven't drawn any conclusions.

Really. I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree on what a "conclusion" is.

You are the one who clearly has something to defend here.

Sure. NASA. So what? Have I tried to hide that?

I enjoyed your new clearer(?) example, but your clearer example is not synchronous with what you said earlier. Your "apple" example would sync better if I adjusted your quote a little by incorporating some of your earlier posting:

"it becomes clear [after manipulation] that certain colors appear to be missing from the brown-apple photo ... to make the [apple] look more red and lifeless."

Something like that anyway.

It's just an observation of fact, no conclusions are involved.

Well, if you say so. It seems at a bare minimum you've concluded that attenuating the red makes Mars look lifeless.

 

[fitzbew88]

Not sure how useful the information is, but here is a PDF file hosted by the Lunar and Planetary Institute that provides some details on the main camera used by Phoenix.

I guess you could say that perusing it makes a good case for the point that when we are looking at these images, our terrestrial experiences with cameras and "colors" are rather meaningless.

Phoenix SSI Imager Spec PDF File

I was joking earlier that these cameras are not like the cameras we buy at Circuit City, well that's sure true.

 

[BrandonD]

Well, I didn't deliberately illustrate a process --- I'm not sure what you mean.

I enjoyed your new clearer(?) example, but your clearer example is not synchronous with what you said earlier. Your "apple" example would sync better if I adjusted your quote a little by incorporating some of your earlier posting:

Well, if you say so. It seems at a bare minimum you've concluded that attenuating the red makes Mars look lifeless.

You mentioned that I might be using a filter that removes some colors (possibly to attenuate other colors). I'm not doing that, so I'm not using the process you illustrated.

Ok, even clearer example:

I have an object with four colors on it. I know exactly how these colors should look in the sunlight. I have a photo with said object in it, and in this photo the four colors do not look the way they should look in sunlight.

So I take the photo and manipulate the hues until these colors are in sync with how they should appear to the naked eye. I think it's reasonable to assume that when the primary colors are calibrated to their actual visible appearance in sunlight, the colors in the rest of the photo will also be calibrated to their actual visible appearance as well.

This is the process that I went through, it is very simple and straight-forward.

You should pay more attention to exactly what I write. I did not say that attenuating the red makes mars look lifeless. I said that removing green and blue makes mars look lifeless. What are generally the colors in the areas of earth teeming with life? Answer: green and blue. This is not a "conspiratorial" idea, it is just common-sense and anyone would answer this way.

 

[Brian Now]

This is the process that I went through, it is very simple and straight-forward.

Wouldn't the problem be that you are not using raw data? So any results you get manipulating these NASA images with photoshop would necessarily be a little off I would think.
If green/blue was indeed filtered out I wonder if there was a (non-conspiracy) reason for it. For example, what if including it might give false perspectives in terms of distance or shadows or something?

PS They still say the red color on Mars is due to a process like oxidation right? Or have they moved off the rust idea?

 

[BrandonD]

Wouldn't the problem be that you are not using raw data? So any results you get manipulating these NASA images with photoshop would necessarily be a little off I would think.
If green/blue was indeed filtered out I wonder if there was a (non-conspiracy) reason for it. For example, what if including it might give false perspectives in terms of distance or shadows or something?

PS They still say the red color on Mars is due to a process like oxidation right? Or have they moved off the rust idea?

Yea I've taken that stuff into consideration, that's why I mentioned in my first post that I'm not an expert and I haven't drawn any conclusions.

The whole reason I did it is because the colors of the calibration panels were so different from the original colors. There could be a perfectly good reason for that, just throwing out an interesting observation.

 

[fitzbew88]

You mentioned that I might be using a filter that removes some colors (possibly to attenuate other colors). I'm not doing that, so I'm not using the process you illustrated.

If we don't see eye-to-eye on what a "conclusion" is, then I certainly am not going to try and reach a consensus with you on what a "process" is.

And for what it's worth, I was referring to what NASA's probe would be doing when it actually captured the image, not what you [Brandon] were doing. (That is, the "you're" in my posting was the probe.) My fault.

Moving on.

I think it's reasonable to assume that when the primary colors are calibrated to their actual visible appearance in sunlight, the colors in the rest of the photo will also be calibrated to their actual visible appearance as well.

Oh no I don't see that as a slam-dunk at all. A lot of the "core" factors that control how we see color are different on each planet: The Sun is 50 million miles further away, the atmosphere is virtually absent, dust is everwhere --- and that's ignoring potential biochemical differences that might be triggered by the differences in gravity on the two worlds. (How are rods and cones affected by diminishing gravity?)

"Color" is just what's left after the environment removes all other colors; in two considerably different environments, I would expect some considerable difference in colors.

What I was trying to say in my earlier post was that I am not at all sure that forcing colors back into an image that has already been processed by NASA using filters (or some other method) would give us good data. A red calibration label on earth might appear to be orangish on Mars. (I'm not saying that --- but it seems plausible to me.)

And I would like to reiterate that I don't care that the images are filtered/manipulated/processed by whatever method by whoever. My only concern here is the allegation that the images are manipulated by NASA to conceal that Mars is "earth-like" and "teeming" with life. In my own mind, that jumps too far over the crazy line for me to be quiet.

You should pay more attention to exactly what I write...I said that removing green and blue makes mars look lifeless.

But it's NASA "removing the green and blue" which "makes Mars look lifeless." You can't say that and then consider yourself above the debate.

Perhaps you inadvertently joined the Conspiracy Cabal.

What are generally the colors in the areas of earth teeming with life? Answer: green and blue. This is not a "conspiratorial" idea, it is just common-sense and anyone would answer this way.

I don't think this is common-sense at all --- my backyard is teeming with life, and I see no blue whatsover and many other colors than green. When I picture Earth in my mind from a distance, I see white, blue, and brown.

 

[BrandonD]

Oh no I don't see that as a slam-dunk at all. A lot of the "core" factors that control how we see color are different on each planet: The Sun is 50 million miles further away, the atmosphere is virtually absent, dust is everwhere --- and that's ignoring potential biochemical differences that might be triggered by the differences in gravity on the two worlds. (How are rods and cones affected by diminishing gravity?)

"Color" is just what's left after the environment removes all other colors; in two considerably different environments, I would expect some considerable difference in colors.

What I was trying to say in my earlier post was that I am not at all sure that forcing colors back into an image that has already been processed by NASA using filters (or some other method) would give us good data. A red calibration label on earth might appear to be orangish on Mars. (I'm not saying that --- but it seems plausible to me.)

And I would like to reiterate that I don't care that the images are filtered/manipulated/processed by whatever method by whoever. My only concern here is the allegation that the images are manipulated by NASA to conceal that Mars is "earth-like" and "teeming" with life. In my own mind, that jumps too far over the crazy line for me to be quiet.

You should pay more attention to exactly what I write...I said that removing green and blue makes mars look lifeless.

But it's NASA "removing the green and blue" which "makes Mars look lifeless." You can't say that and then consider yourself above the debate.

Perhaps you inadvertently joined the Conspiracy Cabal.

Please paste the area where I say that NASA is manipulating images. I haven't said anything of the sort, you are reading things into my statements that just aren't there. "Removing colors"...A photographic error can remove color, an atmospheric phenomenon can remove color. The last time I checked, the image department of NASA is not the only thing in the world that can alter the colors of a photograph.

Now, *if* the colors in the photograph are not the actual real-life colors, then it is certainly possible that they were altered by NASA. But I have not concluded that the colors are not the real-life colors.

In short, you are spending all this time building a straw-man to battle, I acknowledged at the very beginning that I'm not an expert and I haven't drawn any conclusions. You should ask yourself why you feel the need to find perceived "conspirators" and do battle with them.

One more time: I never said that NASA is altering the images. And I never said they didn't. Your behavior is more reflective of a true believer, a supporter of NASA through and through.

 

[CapnG]

When we look at object and see color, all we are seeing are the colors that were not absorbed by the object. With the increased distance from the Sun, the vastly thinner atmosphere, the dust --- the cold --- could *anything* have the same color?

Yes they would and should. Evidence: the moon. ZERO atmosphere, yet full colour photographs were taken there showing true colours using cameras made IN THE 60s. Light is light. The fact that it takes an extra 11 minutes to reach mars makes little difference, except (presumably) in total brightness, which can be compensated for with a more photo-sensitive lens. I'll say it again; the fact that we, in 2008 are not seeing verbatum images of the martian surface is at least a little suspect.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Yes they would and should. Evidence: the moon. ZERO atmosphere, yet full colour photographs were taken there showing true colours using cameras made IN THE 60s

Zero atmosphere? Not a fan of John Lear either I see.

 

[fitzbew88]

Yes they would and should. Evidence: the moon. ZERO atmosphere, yet full colour photographs were taken there showing true colours using cameras made IN THE 60s. Light is light. The fact that it takes an extra 11 minutes to reach mars makes little difference, except (presumably) in total brightness, which can be compensated for with a more photo-sensitive lens. I'll say it again; the fact that we, in 2008 are not seeing verbatum images of the martian surface is at least a little suspect.

Well, we don't know what was done in the lab to the moon photos, nor what filters were in place in the camera.

Plus, keep in mind that on the moon atmospheric light scattering is negligible and there is plenty of unfiltered white light around. We can't say that about Mars --- there is *some* atmosphere and light is vastly reduced. I mentioned a couple of other possible factors earlier. I don't think we can compare Mars and the Moon with any more success than we can compare Earth and Mars.

Also remember that you can look at Mars with your own two eyes and see that it is predominately reddish-orange.

You are incorrect about the distance not making any difference, please google "inverse square law."

I really would be reluctant to tell NASA to re-engineer their cameras so that I can see what Mars would look like with my naked eye. Just because I'm curious. In my opinion, they should decide what the camera needs to do based on the required science and then do it.

The bottom line is that I don't feel suspicious about NASA just because colors in Moon photos look "normal" --- I 'm not sure that Moon photos *should* be markedly different.

 

[CapnG]

Also remember that you can look at Mars with your own two eyes and see that it is predominately reddish-orange.

For the record, you'll note that I have never once in this thread contradicted this idea. In fact, with my Voyager FX anecedote I essentially support it.

You are incorrect about the distance not making any difference, please google "inverse square law."

...which can be compensated for with the proper equipment...

I really would be reluctant to tell NASA to re-engineer their cameras so that I can see what Mars would look like with my naked eye. Just because I'm curious. In my opinion, they should decide what the camera needs to do based on the required science and then do it.

At this point I'd settle for crappy, off-colour but never-the-less unaltered photos.

 

[fitzbew88]

Please paste the area where I say that NASA is manipulating images.

I think maybe you missed a couple of posts. There is no doubt the images are manipulated by NASA --- the debate is: Why? Someone has alleged that it is done to hide the fact that Mars is "earth-like" and "teeming" with life.

You can't drop into the debate and say "...colors that had been removed from the images were the colors green and blue. This would specifically make the mars photos look more red and lifeless..." and then play the poor misunderstood guy.

At least I don't think that's intellectually honest.

Your behavior is more reflective of a true believer, a supporter of NASA through and through.

I truly believe that NASA is not manipulating images to hide the fact that Mars is "earth-like" and "teeming" with life, and I do support NASA (although I am not sure I can say "through and through").

Someone has made a nefarious allegation that's insulting to thousands of scientists and engineers world-wide. (Not only Americans.) It's destructive to the space program, and destructive to science in general. It's offensive, and only allowed to permeate because no one bothers to argue. Well, today I drew a line.